Why do you not believe in God?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Do we have an abstract facepalm smiley?

---

If you embrace the idea that lack of evidence isn't a reason for lacking belief in a proposition, then by virtue of that idea you necessarily accept any proposed postulate.

I have studied logic a little and I would disagree.

1. The absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence
2. Therefore I must accept all God claims (catos "proposed postulate")

How does 2 follow from 1?

I find your stubborn rejection of reason disturbing. and by the way, watching Craig videos is not studying logic, it is studying ANTI-logic. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You are a perfect example of this.

Philosophy of Religion Online Textbook, Dr. Philip A. Pecorino,Professor of Philosophy, Queensborough Community College, CUNY


http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...-Proof.htm

Rejecting the Burden of Proof

There are those who will refuse to accept that the burden of proof rests with those making positive claims. They do want to claim that:

"miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

"souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

"angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

"deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

Those who behave in this manner are rejecting the use of reason. They want to believe that X is true or that X exists and to believe it without evidence or even against evidence to the contrary. They want to have their beliefs remain intact and not subject to refutation or to reexamination for fear of needing to alter their beliefs. They rest their beliefs in X existing or in X being true not on evidence and reason but on FAITH and even on BLIND FAITH and when against reason and counterevidence on willfully BLIND FAITH. Such behavior is within the realm of Religion and not at all acceptable amongst those who would pursue Philosophical discourse or who would ask that reason and evidence support claims.